BF2S Forums Afghanistan

Beduin wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Beduin wrote:

No, I just stated one main parameter that influence the winning of the hearts and souls of the afghan people.

And by perpetuating a falsehood, you are doing exactly what it was I asked you were doing.

Google + "nato kills civilians in afghanistan airstrike" = Facts?

No. Reading actual engagement reports and actual news reports of those engagements equals facts.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I was referring to the Javelins.
I would have thought a 75mm or 105mm field gun would be almost as easy to shift around as a truck full of Javelins, and much cheaper to operate.

Wrong.

A single field gun requires a mobilizer and a tow vehicle, plus the crew. Plus the vehicle and mobilizer for the ammo. Plus the crew for that. Plus the maintenance tail for all that. Then you've got the fire-control element and C2 piece. There are some fire bases where there is arty, but they can't provide fire support to all the teams in the field at all times.

A javelin requires the soldier who carries it. As it's part of the standard load-out of a company/battalion, there's no extra logistics requirement.

FEOS wrote:

A single field gun requires a mobilizer and a tow vehicle, plus the crew. Plus the vehicle and mobilizer for the ammo. Plus the crew for that. Plus the maintenance tail for all that. Then you've got the fire-control element and C2 piece. There are some fire bases where there is arty, but they can't provide fire support to all the teams in the field at all times.

I would have thought a 75mm could be towed behind a landrover carrying the ammo.
Still, the cost of the vehicles and the gun could be paid for with the Javelins used in a 10 minute engagement.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

A single field gun requires a mobilizer and a tow vehicle, plus the crew. Plus the vehicle and mobilizer for the ammo. Plus the crew for that. Plus the maintenance tail for all that. Then you've got the fire-control element and C2 piece. There are some fire bases where there is arty, but they can't provide fire support to all the teams in the field at all times.

I would have thought a 75mm could be towed behind a landrover carrying the ammo.
Still, the cost of the vehicles and the gun could be paid for with the Javelins used in a 10 minute engagement.

Do you have any concept of what one of the vehicles costs? And the costs of the logistics trail to keep not just that vehicle, but all the other vehicles needed to keep that vehicle and its support infrastructure operating? It's a geometric progression, similar to the logic of "it's better to wound an adversary than to kill him" due to the logistics burden it places on the other side.

You can lug a field gun up a mountain?

FEOS wrote:

It's not just the gun, Dilbert.

I'm talking about field guns, not field artillery, try to keep up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L118

FEOS wrote:

The point being that in the short term, they can move away from opium as well.

Doesn't seem to be working now does it?

Exactly, those humongous cannon are not suitable for combating insurgencies, nor are $80,000 anti-tank missiles.

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not just the gun, Dilbert.

I'm talking about field guns, not field artillery, try to keep up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L118

FEOS wrote:

The point being that in the short term, they can move away from opium as well.

Doesn't seem to be working now does it?

Did you miss this part of the field gun article?


Modern times

Today the gun finds itself in an area that seems to be gone for good. The class of small and highly mobile artillery has been filled with increasing capacity by the man-portable mortar, which replaced almost every artillery piece smaller than 105 mm. Gun-howitzers fill the middle ground, with the world rapidly standardizing on the 155 mm NATO or 152 mm former USSR standards. The need for a long-range weapon is filled by rocket artillery, or aircraft. Modern gun-artillery such as the L118 105mm light gun is used to provide fire support for infantry and armour at ranges where mortars are impractical. Man-packed mortars lack the range or hitting power of gun-artillery. In between is the rifled towed mortar - this weapon (usually in 120mm calibre) is light enough to be towed by a Land Rover, has a range of over 6,000m and fires a bomb comparable in weight to an artillery shell.

FEOS wrote:

Yes, let's do try to keep up, shall we? From your own "Field Gun" article:

So why are they using Javelins then?

The Javelin is a manportable, fire-and-forget, antitank missile employed by dismounted infantry to defeat current and future threat armored combat vehicles.

Yes, the Taleban have a lot of armoured combat vehicles.

You'll notice the focus on dismounted infantry.

Who are generally supported by vehicles already.

That means no additional prime mover requirements, for either equipment or ammunition. That means no specialized crews to operate the equipment. That means no additional logistics tail for that additional equipment and personnel.

There is some or all of the above for the Javelin, or 105mm mortars.
There's just the $80,000 per shot requirement of the Javelin to think about, compared with ~$600 for a 105mm cannon, less for smaller calibres.

FEOS wrote:

Hasn't been implemented yet now has it?

9 years on what are they waiting for exactly? Change in the weather?

Commie Killer wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It's not just the gun, Dilbert.

I'm talking about field guns, not field artillery, try to keep up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L118

FEOS wrote:

The point being that in the short term, they can move away from opium as well.

Doesn't seem to be working now does it?

Did you miss this part of the field gun article?


Modern times

Today the gun finds itself in an area that seems to be gone for good. The class of small and highly mobile artillery has been filled with increasing capacity by the man-portable mortar, which replaced almost every artillery piece smaller than 105 mm. Gun-howitzers fill the middle ground, with the world rapidly standardizing on the 155 mm NATO or 152 mm former USSR standards. The need for a long-range weapon is filled by rocket artillery, or aircraft. Modern gun-artillery such as the L118 105mm light gun is used to provide fire support for infantry and armour at ranges where mortars are impractical. Man-packed mortars lack the range or hitting power of gun-artillery. In between is the rifled towed mortar - this weapon (usually in 120mm calibre) is light enough to be towed by a Land Rover, has a range of over 6,000m and fires a bomb comparable in weight to an artillery shell.

Did you even read what you copy-pasted?
A light field gun seems more sensible than $80,000 dollar anti-tank missiles.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-02 19:29:32)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'm talking about field guns, not field artillery, try to keep up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L118

Doesn't seem to be working now does it?

Did you miss this part of the field gun article?


Modern times

Today the gun finds itself in an area that seems to be gone for good. The class of small and highly mobile artillery has been filled with increasing capacity by the man-portable mortar, which replaced almost every artillery piece smaller than 105 mm. Gun-howitzers fill the middle ground, with the world rapidly standardizing on the 155 mm NATO or 152 mm former USSR standards. The need for a long-range weapon is filled by rocket artillery, or aircraft. Modern gun-artillery such as the L118 105mm light gun is used to provide fire support for infantry and armour at ranges where mortars are impractical. Man-packed mortars lack the range or hitting power of gun-artillery. In between is the rifled towed mortar - this weapon (usually in 120mm calibre) is light enough to be towed by a Land Rover, has a range of over 6,000m and fires a bomb comparable in weight to an artillery shell.

Did you even read what you copy-pasted?
A light field gun seems more sensible than $80,000 dollar anti-tank missiles.

I absolutely did read it. Did you? After you read it, did you think about the difference between direct fire and indirect fire weapons? About the difference between effective ranges and the ranges in which the firefights are occurring in Afghanistan? Did you even understand what was meant by the "impracticality" of the range portion you highlighted?

The bottomline is that you have zero understanding of the concept of employment of any of these weapon systems and are approaching it from a simplistic bean-counting perspective--which is utter folly. It ignores operational realities such as logistical requirements, operational needs (direct vs indirect fire, minimum effective range, etc), mobility methodologies for the terrain (mix of helo only and mount/dismount infantry), etc, etc, etc.

But you look at cost per fucking round and think you've cracked the code.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-11-02 20:03:42)

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Cost is irrelevant. What is the operational requirement wrt firepower, mobility and supportability?

Cost is not irrelevant, there is a limited budget, money spent on anti-tank guided missiles is money which won't be spent elsewhere.
Seems bizarre the British Army is trying to keep a lid on the amount of .50 ammo they are using and at the same time firing off guided missiles at little guys with AKs.

Let's see you put on the green eyeshades when it's your pink ass on the line.

Didn't think so.

Dilbert_X wrote:

And my guess is they are waiting on the UN to pull their head out of their collective ass.

Oh right, blame the UN
You know the US does have a seat on the UN, they could put forward a motion since they have an interest in Afghanistan.

How about the UK? Or Australia? Maybe Russia? Or China? Gee, there's a whole shit-load of other countries on the UN, too.

The measures have been put forward. But then there's the sticky wicket of Afghanistan being a sovereign nation and all...they have a say in it, too.

Last edited by FEOS (2009-11-02 20:11:04)

Dilbert_X wrote:

You broke it you bought it.

its never been not broke

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Let's see you put on the green eyeshades when it's your pink ass on the line.

Armies and countries don't have unlimited budgets to fight wars.
Cost-effectiveness is important, since money wasted =  lives at risk at some other point.
BTW How is your economy doing?
How many F35s and F22s are being ordered now?

Utterly simplistic view...not surprising.

Money's already been spent. It's not like it could've or would've been spent elsewhere in the future. It was spent five or ten years ago.

You don't fight a war looking at the tally. That's the surest way to lose your ass. You apply the amount of force needed where its needed, when its needed. Period.

Ask the MoDs of the UK and Australia (and Turkey and Germany and Italy and Spain and...) how many F35s they're buying.

Dilbert_X wrote:

How about the UK? Or Australia? Maybe Russia? Or China? Gee, there's a whole shit-load of other countries on the UN, too.

You broke it you bought it.

Hence why I listed the UK and Australia. Then there's Canada, the rest of NATO and many many others. But in your narrow-viewed world where everything is the US's fault, you just conveniently ignore those little factoids, eh?